Case in point - Patsy doesn't show her Fireteam: Haris Special Skill in generic PanOceania, but other units do show the Skill in their generic list, for example Umbra Samaritans. To repeat - at this point you CANNOT form Fireteams based purely on information from Army. It simply doesn't contain all the information, and where it does it's not always the correct information. As I've said elsewhere (repeatedly), I'm working with CB to fix that, but it's not a simple task and doesn't have any quick fixes.
Do these skills cost much 'points'? The Kriza profiles cost the same in Vanilla and sectorial, and if you pay points in Vanilla for a skill you cannot use, that makes the profil less attractive/more expensive in Vanilla.
They're very cheap. Duo doesn't seem to cost points at all most of the time and Haris, which typically has a mirror non-Haris profile, does cost a point most of the time but more notably tends to mandate at least 0,5SWC cost.
Just to be clear, whilst that is 'an available reading' (to use a term from formal semiotics) I only offered it as a 'cargo cult explanation' - given the lack of proper explanations for the skill's inclusion. I'd still happily wager that it was intentional, or just as easily accept that it's a simple error, which (apologies for this reply being somewhat out of sync) is apparently what it is. Yes, I'm not familiar with these other similar presentations you mention, but that's exactly the point I made earlier. If all the Skills were repeated across all profiles of course we'd more readily understand that they're not applicable. Since this typically usable one (Duo) is being duplicated, we might (and maybe even should) reasonably conclude it's not in error, and hence this thread.
Of course I was not. And, unless I very much miss my mark, neither were the majority of people reading and participating in this thread either, because trying to discover if Army was displaying the information correctly is exactly what the thread is about.
For my part. I wasn't concerned about Army's display, but how the vanilla teams can be formed with TeamPro and the implications of that. Which looks to be no Characters in Duos with TeamPro by all accounts.
You clearly haven't been paying attention to Fireteam related discussions at all this year then, have you?
Okay, so in summary and for the benefit of later readers Army might sometimes list Fireteam skills that are inapplicable to a particular profile; or it might not Arguably, some such inapplicable listings are not actually incorrect per se, and It's been discussed elsewhere that Army does not work reliably in respect of Fireteam profiles anyway
4. An effort is underway to make Army show fireteam info in a better way, but it's a non-trivial undertaking.
Yeah, but it's not actually a non-trivial problem; it's just very hard indeed because they're using an Excel spreadsheet to manage their unit data, then trying to spooge it into a Flash application, and wondering why it's all so hard.
And since I was curious about how widely-known and how clearly understood these issues really are, I asked a local Warcor how trustworthy he thought the members of his players (an active, medium-sized club) consider Army to be. The following is a verbatim extract of our messages: Of course it's all very cursory, but I've no doubt it's also reasonably representative of that vast majority of players worldwide who don't frequent these forums and may not be even dimly aware of the things we discuss here. So if CB want people to know there's a problem with Fireteam listings in Army (or any similar issue), the place to put that information is in Army itself.
I'm very surprised that questions some times get answers of the type: Duh! It was said in several threads. Or it was said by this or that CB staff member or warcor. The fact that a lot of people assume all players should know these things speaks very negatively about the actual status of the game rules and their clarity. And I say this because I love this game, and I'm really afraid rule clarity/complexity can slowly but steadily kill it.
The thread got to ~57 posts before that answer was proferred. And only then in response to @Wolf drawing a long bow from the available information. To which the response was a variation of "that information is unreliable". It's also worth noting that @Wolf isn't a new poster but a longstanding, vocal and active participant of the forums: so it's reasonable to expect that he's aware of information that has been discussed multiple times and even has a stickied thread to deal with it. 90% of rules questions that cover ground that's already been discussed get simple answers that deal with the question in the minimum of posts (quite often with references provided).
Yes, I think it's an unfortunate part of the human condition, really. We tend to think that everyone else knows what we know; that if they don't, they should know, or should at least want to know; and generally, that everyone else also shares our values and our opinions too. The word for this is 'conceit', and although I've seen a few genuinely mischievous posts from nasty little trolls, the cause of most of our confusion, arguments and even hostility here is usually just this normal, vanilla (or 'generic' as we say in Infinity ) conceit. No doubt people who apparently do know what's going on and could've provided some clarity on the first page of this thread can make up their own excuses for why they didn't; but conceit is what explains most of my bullshit.
